“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." -- GK Chesterton

Chesterton’s Fence has a certain popularity amongst those who wish oppose various socially progressive ideas, and there is a misconception that those who wish to destroy this or that are doing so without considering the nature of what they wish to tear down. That if the progressive adhered to Chesterton’s Fence that there could be a more productive conversation between the reformer and his opponents. This is a grave mistake. It may be a hard thing to accept, but the revolutionary often has a better understanding of the nature and purpose of the institutions he wishes to dismantle than those who oppose him.

Take for instance the widespread acceptance among certain Christian communities of LGBTQ ideology or Feminism. Acceptance of both of these ideologies by Christians require the dismantling fences that have stood for thousands of years. Their opponents might naively bemoan that these progressives should have considered why things were the way they were; that an appeal the “niceness” of modernity was no basis for such sweeping changes; that they should have considered Chesterton’s Fence. The thing is these people know the purpose of the fences in question and are lying about their reason for wanting to tear them down. In fact, they are lying about even wanting to tear them down; they claim that after removing everything but the posts that the fences has been improved. They are lying.

To understand why they do this, you need to know what they know: what is the fence for, and why they would want it gone. It would also help to know why they are lying.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was signed into law, its proponents made two claims. The first was that the old quota system unjustly restricted immigration because it expressly aimed to maintain the character of the American people, that is to say a Nation predominantly comprised of White Christians. Their second claim that the law would not have a significant impact on the culture or demographics of the American people. Obviously, they were talking out of both sides of their mouths. You see, Emanuel Cellar knew the purpose of US immigration law prior to 1965, but he didn’t go around saying that the predominantly White and Christian nature of the United States must be destroyed: he claimed that the principles that protected such a system were unjust, then he claimed that the major changes he proposed would have no effect. He was not ignorant of the nature of the thing he wanted to destroy; he ignored its nature and appealed to the better nature of the American people for permission to destroy it. In short, he was lying.

Chesterton’s Fence presumes that the reformer is not actively engaged in subterfuge, but this is not typically the case. The revolutionary knows why the fence is there but demands of its defender “why do you care; how does this even effect you?” when he begins to tear it down. They don’t want you to know what the fence is for, and they certainly don’t want you to know that they know what the fence is for. They are lying.

Why would Philip Hart, Emanual Cellar, and Lyndon Johnson lie? Because it would have been a pretty hard sell, even to the rank-and-file liberal of last century, to say “we should pass a law aimed at reducing the White proportion of the population,” but that’s what they were aiming for. It was, however, surprisingly easy to convince Americans left-right-and-center that they ought to be nicer to foreigners of all creeds and colors, never mind that the framers of the Hart-Caller act were expressly aiming to tear down the fence that maintained the ethnic and religious nature of the American Nation. It was an appeal to be allowed to use American principles to destroy the Americans that upheld those same principles. They were again, of course, lying.

When barbarians arrive at the gate saying, “we are not a conquering enemy; we are but poor refugees,” do not believe them. When the progressive says, ‘we do not want to destroy the American family; we are only teaching your children empathy for the other,” do not believe them. When the pastor says, “we do not wish to change the Christian Religion; we are simply teaching our flock to be more tolerant,” do not believe them. Assume they are lying.